Strasbourg, 21/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - After long-protracted work on the reform of cohesion policy, and its adoption by the European Parliament on Wednesday 20 November, it will now be up to the beneficiaries to resume work and applythe operational programmes in a simplified version - as of 1 January. This is a relief for the MEPs and others who worked on the reform. However, there is still bitterness about certain arrangements - including macroeconomic conditionality and the threat of European structural funding being cut if the stability and growth pact is violated.
Optimistic groups. For the big groups at the European Parliament, the revision of the cohesion policy rules is a good thing so as to have judicious use of the €325 billion that will be given to it in 2014-2020. It was only the Socialists that did not comment on the adoption in plenary because the S&D Group had not voted collectively. The EPP Group underlines innovation and flexibility of the instruments so that they might be adapted to the needs of the regions. The Liberals welcomed a focus on research, renewable energy, ICT and SMEs (but not enough, for the Liberals' taste, as too much is left to big business). Even the Greens recognise that the reform is “more ecological”, thanks to investment in the energy transition and less invesment in “pointless” big infrastructure projects. This itself is no longer “fair” because of the creation of a category of regions in transition, says Karima Delli (Greens/EFA, France).
Macroeconomic conditionality. Nevertheless, the Greens/EFA Group abstained from voting. Delli says that “unlike the alliance of Socialists and Conservatives, the ecologists remained coherent to the end by rejecting this sword of Damocles” which is macroeconomic conditionality. The Greens/EFA Group lambasts macroeconomic conditionality and the “scandalous” method chosen by President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz to adopt it, according to Elisabeth Schroedter (Greens/EFA, Germany) - in reference to the vote on the compromise and not on the amendments. In Schroedter's view, macroeconomic conditionality “flies in the face of good policy-making (…). Cohesion policy must not be used as an additional stick to beat those countries experiencing difficulty complying with the stability pact”. This runs counter to what the EU should do to ensure solidarity and to help the regions in economic difficulty, the Greens say.
Communities. The end beneficiaries have criticised this instrument right from the start and did so again after the vote - through the voice of various associations (CEMR, AER, CPMRE and Eurocities). The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) welcomed the, ultimately thwated, efforts of the European Parliament to reduce the effects - for example, limiting the suspension of payments to a maximum of 50%. Nevertheless, it will now certainly be “up to the cities and regions to step up the efforts for investment which will be co-financed by the European budget from 2014”, said CEMR secretary general, Fréderic Vallier. Several arrangements now provide more room for multi-level governance.
Budget. These associations also deplored the fact that budget cuts have not spared the cohesion policy which, for the first time, will have to do more with less. The cities share this sentiment - even though it is planned for 5% of the European Regional Development Fund to be allocated to them in the future. Eurocities believes that this will not be enough to meet all the challenges which the cities have to address. (MD/transl.fl)